WifiGPSDPAFTouchscreen for DPAF focusTouchscreen for Pinch to Zoom image preview, quicker image proofingArticulating screen if they are able to make it durable for creative shooting purposesImage quality improvementDual SD slots that fully support UHS II standardmicro USB 3.0 cable support for faster cable transfers to PC

I would tweak that to say "Dual SD slots that fully support UHS-II (up to 316 MBps)". 135 millibits per second (about 16.8 kilobytes per second) isn't very fast.

But otherwise, yeah, that would be a really nice enhancement to the 5D line.

I would like to see following out of 5D4:WifiGPSDPAFTouchscreen for DPAF focusmicro USB 3.0 cable support for faster cable transfers to PC

Yup, they will all be there.

Quote

Touchscreen for Pinch to Zoom image preview, quicker image proofingArticulating screen if they are able to make it durable for creative shooting purposesDual SD slots that fully support UHS II standard

All quite possible since they're gimics that will attract feature-buyers...

That said, physically, I think it is impossible for any camera to have a true two stops better performance than the current 5D III...

The 36MP Nikon D800 already offers 2 points of DR above what the 5D3 does with comparable noise.The D800's pixels are 4.9um, the 5D3's are 6.25um.So not "better" but "the same" for smaller.

This is the opposite of what I'm talking about. At low ISO, dynamic range is limited by read noise. Canon has gobs of read noise at low ISO thanks to their ADC.

What I am talking about is noise performance at high ISO. Read noise is practically non-existent at high ISO for most cameras, meaning that noise at high ISO is completely dominated by photon shot noise. The only ways to reduce photon shot noise are either using bigger pixels (which is roughly the same as downsampling in post), or improving Q.E. You will notice in those charts that once you get past ISO 800, DR falls off in linear fashion, and there is little difference between the two cameras. To get a true two stop improvement in high ISO performance, you would have to shift the plotted lines upwards on the graph. The only way to do that, really, is to increase Q.E. At best, with Q.E. currently around 50% or so, it is impossible to get a full stop better noise performance at high ISO, let alone two stops.

That said, physically, I think it is impossible for any camera to have a true two stops better performance than the current 5D III...

The 36MP Nikon D800 already offers 2 points of DR above what the 5D3 does with comparable noise.The D800's pixels are 4.9um, the 5D3's are 6.25um.So not "better" but "the same" for smaller.

This is the opposite of what I'm talking about. At low ISO, dynamic range is limited by read noise. Canon has gobs of read noise at low ISO thanks to their ADC.

Yes and it is easily visible in dark tones.

And again, that isn't what we are discussing. Low ISO factors are well known, and have been beaten to death. Read noise, not photon shot noise, dominates at low ISO. Some newer sensors have very low read noise at low ISO, hence their improved DR. That has nothing to do with how a sensor performs at high ISO, however...which is dominated by photon shot noise.

Quantity of light converted into charge in a given time interval is what matters at high ISO. You can increase that quantity/time ratio by doing one of two things: increase pixel area (or, downsample in post)...or increase Q.E. (which is the ratio of photons converted into charge in a photodiode). Since Q.E. in modern sensors is already between 50-60%, and stops refer to changes by powers of two, at best, assuming manufacturers find a way to achieve 100% Q.E. at room temperature, we could see one true stop of better high ISO noise performance. For sensors that already achieve over 50% Q.E., we can't even hope to see one true stop better.

I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo. It has no immediate practical relevance to a photographer.

Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.

Today's situation is simple and clear:

Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash.

And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx

Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible. Or leapfrog Sony/Nikon ... if they are able to. Canon should not rely much longer solely on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), since this is a high risk strategy. After all, to most photographers, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device. :-)

Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.

I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo. It has no immediate practical relevance to a photographer.

Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.

Today's situation is simple and clear:

Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash.

And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx

Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible. Or leapfrog Sony/Nikon ... if they are able to.uote] Canon should not rely much longer solely on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), since this is a high risk strategy. After all, to most photographers, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device. :-)

+1

Quote

Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.

Not sure about resolution as it increases the difficulty in obtaining sharp images.

I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo. It has no immediate practical relevance to a photographerme.

FTFY.

Quote

Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.

True dat. And also how to budget for their future gear purchases.

Quote

Today's situation is simple and clear to me:

FTFY

Quote

Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash.

And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx

None of which means anything if:

You need AF speed/accuracy more than IQ/DR

Your budget does not allow you to switch from your current gear collection

Your shooting style does not depend on these qualitative differences

Quote

Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and shouldand I want them to do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possibleto accommodate my preferences.

FTFY

Quote

Canon shouldwould not rely much longer solely on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), sinceif this is awere high risk strategy. After all, to most photographersme, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device, and I feel that I'm unable to take satisfactory photos with a current model Canon. :-)

FTFY

Quote

Therefore I would like a 5D IV shouldto[/b] have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitivetechnically superior and lower-priced than all other competing models in 2014/15.

I am not interested in this constant regurgitation of theoretical tech mumbo jumbo. It has no immediate practical relevance to a photographer.

Photographers are interested in the images they can capture using the gear available today.

Today's situation is simple and clear:

Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash.

And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx

Canon is lagging behind Nikon/Sony in sensor capability and should do everything they can to close the gap as soon as possible. Or leapfrog Sony/Nikon ... if they are able to. Canon should not rely much longer solely on other strengths of their eco-system (mainly: UI and lenses), since this is a high risk strategy. After all, to most photographers, image quality is the single most important and central feature of any image capturing device. :-)

Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.

Very interesting. How has this affected your photos? That is if you don't mind sharing a few photos.

Currently Nikon D800/E and Sony A7R have way more resolution at all ISO settings than any Canon EOS camera. This is usefuly in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E + A7R have way more DR at the most frequently used low ISO settings. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts. :-)

D800/E and A7R images have not more noise but very slightly less DR at ISO settings 3200 and 6400 compared to any Canon EOS currently on the market (including 5D III and 1Dx). In practice it is a wash.

And from ISO 12800 upwards - if one ever needs it - IQ is basically a tie between Nikon D4 and 1Dx

Today's situation is simple and clear:

Currently Canon 5DIII and 1D X have better AF than any Nikon or Sony camera.

5DIII has a faster frame rate than D800/E + A7R, 1D X has a faster frame rate than D4. This is useful in many images and shooting contexts.

Above ISO 1600, settings which are commonly used by many photographers, D800/E + A7R + D4 have no DR advantange over 5DIII + 1D X.

Generally speaking, Canon has better lenses where there are equivalent options, and more unique lens offerings than Nikon.

got it, OrangUtan ... from your apparent love for red ink and in-text corrections you must be an old-style school teacher by profession and a Canon fan-boy by vocation.Too bad I am not one of your students.

I therefore ask you politely to refrain from defacing my posts and twisting my words using bolded bi-color full text quotes. It is bad style and hurts my readers' eyes.

@ RLphoto: No, I won't ever show any of my images here. And not necessary ... since the shortcomings and limitations in Canon's sensor tech and subsequent image quality relative to better camera gear can be seen and studied in a large number of images readily available on the net.

Hmmm ... sing glories of DR, as if it is the God of all things photography ... but when asked to share at least a few images to show how Canon sensor has affected, just give lame excuses and run for cover ... now that's a lame clever way of avoiding, which helps no one, other than come across as a biased DR fanboy. If Canon Rumors is supposedly for Canon fanboys, why do the DR fanboys hang around here? why don't they c0pulate in DR forums? wait there is no such forum coz DR in sensors holds no value for those who really know how to work DR with proper lighting and diffusion. Photographers worth their salt don't crib about "mommy my camera ain't got DR, I can't take photos without a new Sony sensor, but I still like to come and crib in Canon forums".

you must be an old-style school teacher by profession and a Canon fan-boy by vocation.Too bad I am not one of your students.

Wrong on all counts. I'm not a teacher, nor am am I a fan-boy, nor am "old-style" in most ways. In fact, if I were to start my kit today I might well buy Nikon since their current offerings suit my current style of photography just as well as Canon.

The difference for me is that I don't expect Canon to do anything other than attempt to make a profit. I am not offended when they don't produce the equipment I want to buy at a price I consider "fair." Unlike you, I do not presume that everyone does photography the same way I do, nor do I believe I know how others do photography, nor what equipment other people want. On the contrary, I assume that Canon is capable of effective market research and analysis, and will produce the products that will make them a profit.

There is one and only one option open to me: I can use my money as I see fit. I can choose to buy more Canon gear...or not. At some point I could choose to sell my Canon gear and buy another brand...or not. Telling others what they should expect from Canon is...well...silly.

It is entirely legitimate for you to express your preference for future Canon equipment. It's not legitimate for you to presume to speak for the silent masses suffering under the yoke of (slightly) lower DR or IQ.

got it, OrangUtan ... from your apparent love for red ink and in-text corrections you must be an old-style school teacher by profession and a Canon fan-boy by vocation.Too bad I am not one of your students.

I therefore ask you politely to refrain from defacing my posts and twisting my words using bolded bi-color full text quotes. It is bad style and hurts my readers' eyes.

@ RLphoto: No, I won't ever show any of my images here. And not necessary ... since the shortcomings and limitations in Canon's sensor tech and subsequent image quality relative to better camera gear can be seen and studied in a large number of images readily available on the net.

the funny thing about this is that when I search for images to gain inspiration, I see wonderful images coming from each of these systems. If it were that obvious then you wouldn't see plentiful examples of amazing images. Therefore I have to agree with the rewrites of your post because it is clearly mainly an issue for you. So much so that you seem to be embarrassed by your images - which is a shame because I like many others here are making wonderful images using canon gear - hell, even the lowly 6d continues to impress me. So, I'd say its time to post some real images man, not shots of test shots, not intentionally underexposed imaged lifted 6 stops to show what happens when you push an image too far...real examples of how canon gear's shortcomings are ruining all of your images. Others here aren't scared to post, why are you?

Therefore a 5D IV should have significantly higher resolution and significantly better DR compared to 5D III sensor at ISOs 100, 200 and 400. Plus some further improvements in IQ at higher ISO settings (if possible in addition to low ISO improvements). Plus of course, all the other features needed to make it 100% competitive in 2014/15.

Not sure about resolution as it increases the difficulty in obtaining sharp images.

Not at all. If you take a photo at 80 MP, but the lens's focusing accuracy limits the effective resolution to 20MP, then you aren't getting any benefit out of the higher resolution, but the picture is still just as sharp as it would have been if you were shooting with a 20MP camera.

Yes, if you zoom in on the actual pixels on a photo taken, you get a fuzzier image, but that's only because you're looking at a portion of the image that is one-fourth as big. If you zoom out to a 2:1 view so that you're looking at the same-sized portion of the image, you'll see the same sharpness with the 80MP photo in a 2:1 view as you do with the 20MP photo in a 1:1 view.

Mind you, there's probably minimal benefit to bumping up the resolution of the full-frame sensors unless they bump up the lens resolution to match, but that's a separate issue.